Conservatives and Their Lack of Energy

If one looks at the government website on low carbon technologies, from July one will find a flurry of activity.  All of this can be summed up in the government claim of controlling the cost of renewable energy.

You have probably heard that the power supplier Drax has announced yesterday morning they are pulling out of the carbon capture scheme, only one of two large-scale experiments (the other being in Peterhead), as a response to government cuts on renewable energy - in this case biomass fuel.

Likewise, support for small scale (less than 5MW) solar electrical generation are being withdrawn, and feed-in tariff support (that is the payments made for solar-generated electricity by small-scale suppliers) are being slashed and ended early.  Hundreds of small firms, importers and thousands of households that have already installed solar PV, and who were relying upon the goodwill and constancy of government policy have been ruthlessly betrayed.

Add to this also the Conservative's decision to block all onshore development of wind turbine technology and cut support for offshore wind farms, one can only conclude that it is all-out war on renewable energy itself.  Pretty much every green policy introduced by the Liberal Democrats during the last parliament is under attack.

That being the case, let's instead see what the Conservative's favoured technologies are.  Fracking and nuclear.

Now, I am not against fracking per se, as long as high standards and correct oversight are put in place.  In that, as I have blogged before, the Collation record was not bad at all.  That has changed since the Conservatives has returned to single-party rule; reversing decisions to protect national parks for instance.  No matter: Unfortunately, especially for those of us who work in the oil energy, the bottom has fallen out of the market.   The oil price has literally halved since last year.  This is good news for energy consumers (aren't we all) but at these times it means that the industries invest nothing into exploration.  Last week the Telegraph reported that in the North Sea - and I am taking this to mean for the entire basin (UK + Europe), 65,000 jobs have gone.  This would be about right.  For example: yesterday it was leaked that major oil service company Halliburton will be announcing a second round of cuts within the next two weeks; this being in addition to the 14,000 jobs they have already shed.  I am still in the industry but hanging on by the fingernails: my employer are cutting staff by thirty percent and there is no guarantee this is going to be the end of it.   OPEC is predicting the oil price will return to eighty dollars a barrel but not before 2020, while the great vampyre squid, Goldman Sachs, is now in bear mode, predicting that the oil price will remain low for the next fifteen years.  Frankly I don't believe that though.  Goldman have always played their own game.

One should also note that the fall in the fossil fuel price means lower consumer prices, therefore the burden of the renewable fuels levy is lessened as prices fall overall.  Since the Conservative cuts were announced in July after the price has fallen, it rather goes to show that the claim of reducing the burden upon the consumer is a red herring: the markets are making it happen anyway.

The last bit of the jigsaw is nuclear.  On this the Conservatives have sought to buck the market by guaranteeing the £2billion investment by the Chinese, This is only part of the total £24billion that the new Hinkley Point C power station, led by French company EDF.  All this is done with guaranteed (and high) prices for the electricity due to be generated.  Hinkley Point is just one of the  sixteen new nuclear power stations planned, all open to foreign investment.  One must assume that the government is also willing to underwrite other shortfalls in investment, plus allow for artificially high prices once the electricity is being produced.  Remember that a government underwriting  an investment means that any profits remain private, while losses are addressed from the public purse.

Both nuclear and renewables address needs just for electricity. Although it remains to be seen whether the Volkswagen diesel scandal will result in a profound change in direction, I cannot see electric cars dominating within the next fifteen years.  Some form of hybrid fuel use is more likely.  This is just for personal transport: long distance vehicles and marine transport will still be reliant on the sticky black stuff.

So what have we got?  Any form of local, small scale, renewable energy will soon no longer have support from the government.  Onshore wind turbines farms are out, and this effects the offshore market as well.  If their policies are allowed to continue, the Conservatives will kill the renewable industries in Britain.  Scotland has the political power to continue but is pretty well on course to be self-sufficient in renewable electrical generation anyhow.  In order for the process to effectively continue, England really has to be committed to it.

Similarly in oil and gas, fracking is not going to happen, at least for now, because of the low energy prices.  One might think that with the cutbacks and the low cost of exploration at this time, that now would be an excellent time explore.  It does not seem to work that way.  During downturns, energy companies just concentrate on the basics: cashflow and dividends first, maintenance after.  The cost of exploration and expansion comes out the surplus generated during high oil prices.

The low oil prices will also accelerate the decommission of the North Sea fields.  If the cost of maintaining the fields outweigh what they are earning, they will simply be shut down.  At this time, 140 (yes, one hundred and forty) fields are up for decommission.  This reflects the running down of the North Sea.  For both oil and gas, production levels are now under thirty percent of their peak levels in the late 1990s.

All this could be explained by the Conservatives perverse and short-term addiction to free-market economics.  It certainly does not add up to any dedication to the much-vaunted term "energy security".  Britain is already a net importer of oil and gas and under current policies that is only set to increase.

Why is it that nuclear is different?  What is so special about Hinkley Point C that those arch free-marketeers that are Cameron's Conservatives, feel the need to set aside up to £2billion of our money to ensure it goes ahead?  One cannot help but wonder if it has nothing to do with energy security,  for which the government seems not to care two jots about, and more to do with defence.

In 2010, David Cameron and President Sarkozy signed the Lancaster House Treaty, which provides for cooperation and close integration, not only between the two nation's military forces, but also joint supply and manufacturing.  The treaty is in force for fifty years so effectively by its end, UK and French military will be totally interchangeable.  Part of this process is nuclear forces.  Everything has a shelf life and nuclear weapons are no different.

Perhaps Hinckley Point C is to be part of this nuclear supply chain.  Who knows? We might even get some electricity out of it as well.

What is clear though, is that as far as energy supply and climate change, the Conservatives are content to leave all that to the free markets.  They simply could not care less.

No more pictures of Dave with huskies.  Given recent revelations with his interactions with other species, perhaps that is not a bad thing.

Campaign Letter #12: Trident

Thank you for your letter on Trident.  Below I will both set out Liberal Democrat and my own thoughts on Trident and nuclear weapons.

Party policy first: The Liberal Democrats are united as being against Trident. As a party,
the majority of members wish to continue along the lines of multi-lateral disarmament and that is current party policy. This means that while it is our policy not to renew Trident, it is party policy
to retain some form of nuclear deterrent.  After this election, we would carry out a review to consider all options, including complete nuclear disarmament, would be on the table.

There is a large minority within the party who support unilateral disarmament, owing to our complete opposition to any ownership of nuclear weapons. I am part of that minority and I have a record of campaigning within the party for a change to our current policy.

To answer your question then, I would vote both against Trident and Britain's continued ownership of any form of nuclear weapons. If elected, I would also use the position to campaign against the
continued ownership by other nuclear-armed nations as well.

I have also stated my views on nuclear weapons on the CND website. I am gravely concerned that the current situation in the Ukraine will be used as justification to continue with the Successor boat project.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to get in contact.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Veart.
Scottish Liberal Democrats
Edinburgh North and Leith

UNA NATO's New Strategic Concept and Global Zero.

The United Nations Association – Edinburgh , One Day Conference on NATO’s New Strategic Concept and Global Zero was held on 1st of November 2010 at the Scottish Parliament. It was a very enlightening day in many regards, sometimes not in the way that the speakers meant however.

After the introduction by Dr. Gari Donn, first speaker of the day was Lord David Hannay; chair of the United Nations Association and former ambassador to the UN. His broad scope were the challenges, past and present facing NATO. In terms of current nuclear threats, Hannay focused upon North Korea and Iran. It was clear from a paper provided with the conference papers that Iran has been doing their best to derail the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty review conference held this year so there is something in what he says. In response to my later suggestion, that when it comes to nuclear-armed countries that are not signatories: India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, should not the regional aspects be considered and their own and their rivals security concerns be taken into account? Lord Hannay decided to talk exclusively about Iran and North Korea in this context. He would not even mention the state of Israel by name and assured the meeting that the only nuclear security concern that Iran had was the USA. A quite remarkable statement.

Lord Hannay did offer a nine step programme to forward multi-lateral disarmament however. In brief they were:

1. Ratification of the test-ban treaty by the US Senate
2. Negotiation of further reductions of strategic nuclear capacity between the USA and Russia, with the involvement of France, Britain and China (the P5 nations)
3. Start of talks over Russian sub-strategic nuclear missile capacity in Europe
4. Progression of de-alert doctrines. This refers to the state of readiness that nuclear weapons are held in.
5. Fissile cut-off treaty. This would the cutting back on nations’ capability to enrich uranium in exchange for non-enriched uranium to be readily available for the promotion of national civilian nuclear power projects. Hannay indicates that in recent years Pakistan has been the major stumbling block on this project.
6. The Fissile cut-off treaty is a necessary precursor to a global test ban treaty
7. Middle East nuclear-free zone, with the first conference taking place in 2012
8. Strengthening the monitoring of global production by the IAEA
9. Acceleration of Norway’s VERTIC verification project.

One would expect many of these points to be raised at NATO’s 10 year review conference of nuclear strategy to be held in Lisbon later this month.

Going back to Iran for a moment, it is my view that when it comes to the Middle East, Israel’s nuclear capacity is the elephant in the room. Naturally I do not in any way support the proliferation of nuclear weapons or Iranian attempts to further their capacity in this area. If one applies the logic of the Cold War though, it could be said that Israel and Iran are regional superpowers and rivals. If one side has nuclear weapons, it would be reasonable for the other to attempt to gain a similar capacity in order to bring about a status of MAD – mutually assured destruction. The fact that one side has nuclear weapons will only drive other nations to attempt to develop their own.

Now I am not going to provide a précis of every speaker as that really is the role of the UNA reportage. Another highlight for me though was the Russian delegation led by Vadim Mitrofanov, head of Foreign Policy at the Embassy of the Russian Federation. He expressed Russian disappointment that NATO was not disbanded at the same time as the Warsaw Pact but, perhaps more pertinently, Russia’s commitment to further disarmament talks with the USA and working in partnership with NATO. On the matter of the sub-strategic nuclear capacity, Mr Mitrofanov said that talks had not started yet but they simply could not decide this matter bilaterally with the USA. The reason for this is clear. In Europe the US has stationed 200 B-61 free-fall nuclear bombs, deployed by US and other NATO (German, Dutch, Belgium, Spain, Italy and Turkish) air forces under burden-sharing agreements. (In military terms nuclear gravity weapons are obsolete although fair to say the use of a single bomb would spoil a lot of peoples’ day.) There were various numbers given for Russian capability but the minimum cited was 2000 short and medium-range nuclear weapons. I took the liberty of following up this Russian position in a round-table session and the Russian Consul General Sergey Krutikov was pleased to clarify the position. Russia desires to see a nuclear-free Europe. Therefore in order to achieve that, not only would the Russian and American weapons would have to go but also those of Britain and France.

On Russia in broader terms, it certainly felt like it is NATO 28 + 1. It is clear that a lot of effort is being put into bringing Russia into the fold, if not as full members but certainly as “super-partners” as the new American terminology has it. This concept was unfurled to us by Dana (pronounced “Daina”) M. Linnet of the US Consulate. She did have a lot of good things to say; on how the USA is working to increase transparency in nuclear issues, are working hard to broaden the concepts of deterrents away from being just nuclear-based and enlarging shared risks and commitments. Along with former defence secretary Lord Des Browne, other nations were berated for not working harder with President Obama in order to further these and other worthy ends. One has to say the effect was rather spoiled by one impertinent fellow sticking up his hand at question time and asking of Dana “What would President Palin do?” It led to some back-tracking and statements such as (from Browne) “even those Republicans who think would back this issue” but the point was well made. After Bush’s dismantling of international agreements in 2005 and the Senate’s unwillingness to ratify the test-ban treaty in front of them, the general intransigent nature of US politics is an international problem. In that respect both Linnet and Browne are correct: Obama does offer a window of opportunity.

The day was very useful in terms of answering the question raised on these pages as who actually controls Britain’s nuclear deterrent. Rebekah Grenowski reported she was summarily put down by Rebecca Johnson of ACRONYM when the former raised this issue. Johnson assured Rebekah that the ownership of Trident was the subject of a bilateral UK-US agreement. This statement is backed up by the response to our letter to Nick Harvey. However, the issue of NATO strategic control was not contradicted by others in round-table meetings. It seems to me therefore that it is not a question of which is right or wrong, rather there is a double-lock on nuclear deployment. Bilateral agreements with the USA backed up with NATO unanimity – which also involves the USA. I feel this matter requires further clarification. It is probably the case though that in reality UK defence spending is bound totally to NATO commitments, thus casting light upon Hillary Clinton's recent intervention on the UK's Strategic Defence and Security review.

I only touched upon some of the matters raised on the day. When the UNA put up their full report I will post the link. It was a very worthwhile day and I am grateful for the chance to attend but sometimes the truth of any matter is deliberately obscure and the more I learn about nuclear weapons, the greater I have that feeling.

Saying No to Trident

I haven’t blogged about my activity with the Say No to Trident group on LibDem Act website and I don’t know why this should be the case.  It was set up in December 2009 following my first (and I have to admit, failed) project to generate discussion on the issue of nuclear weapons – Letters of Last Legacy.  The concept of this was very simple.  In each Trident-armed submarine there is a letter from the Prime Minister, in which are his or her personal views on whether Britain’s nuclear weapons should be used if Britain had already suffered a nuclear first strike, killing or disabling the mechanisms of statehood, command and control.   I invited people to imagine if it was their own letter that was to be read by the captain and crew.
After an initial surge, the contributions dried up.  But one of the correspondents, Rebekah Gronowski, urged me to set up a group on the newly-formed Liberal Democrat ACT site.  I decided against transferring the concept across but rather went for a more simple message: Say No to Trident.

It rapidly became apparent that most group members wanted more than merely to be rid of the Trident system, but rather to ditch Britain’s ownership of nuclear weapons completely.  Since this is also my own view it was an easy path to take.  But I know if we had stuck to the more conservative line of “no like-for-like replacement of Trident”, the group would have had much wider support that it’s current membership of fifty nine.  Both Nick Clegg and Tavish Scott (the Scottish leader of the Liberal Democrats for you folk residing south of the Wall)  have come out on that stance.  One member of ACT even wrote to me, explaining that he would not be joining Say No to Trident precisely because of our unilateralist views; he did however support the scrapping of the Cold War system.

I am indebted however to Dan Fawcett who has directed the group’s attention to a speech by Nick Clegg of the 10th of March, in which he states

“I think there is no case for a nuclear deterrent. I certainly think there is no case for the like for like replacement for that system”  [Trident]

Need I ask how encouraging this that?  As a group, we wrote to Sir Menzies  Campbell who is currently drafting a defence review for the party.  It is not due out until after the general election but we are becoming more hopeful that our message is coming better supported among the leadership of the party.

Now I know that a lot of people in the Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for the party to go unilateral for a long time.  I remember all-to-well being appalled at the activities of the Greenham  Common Women as relayed to me by fellow party members who were also active Greenham protesters,  in a conversation during a party conference in the early 1990s.  Well, I glad to be able to tell you that people can change.  I took part in my first peace march last weekend.  The main point however is that ideas, if they have merit, are kept alive by such worthy and good people until their time comes.  Sometimes, that does indeed take generations.  The Say No to Trident group may be a newcomer to the fight but, if we are successful in our aim to change party policy, it will be mostly due to the long term supporters of unilateralism within the party.

Here is an invitation to you: come, join us and help Britain face the 21st. Century without being burdened with these unnecessary and dreadful weapons.  How can we claim to be a party with the green thread of environmental awareness running through every policy then turn around and support the ownership of the most poisonous, polluting and destructive weapons on the face of the planet? 

It cannot be so.

Do something about it, right now.  Join Say No to Trident and, if you are not a member already, join the Liberal Democrats.

Links
Say No to Trident group
http://act.libdems.org.uk/group/saynototrident

Join the Liberal Democrats
https://www.libdems.org.uk/join_us.aspx
"What Next for Britain" Nick Clegg's speech to Chatham House, 10 March 2010
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/events/download/-/id/1461/doc/transcript/