Major Energy Users: Are we driving them away?

December 4th: At the Major Energy Users Conference with Chairman Andrew Bainbridge, Church House, Westminster

December 4th: At the Major Energy Users Conference with Chairman Andrew Bainbridge, Church House, Westminster

I have argued for some time that if we keep raising energy prices in our chimerical pursuit of a “low carbon economy”, we will drive away intensive energy users from the UK and the EU altogether — and probably send them to other jurisdictions with lower environmental standards.  So the outcome (as so often with government policy) is to make matters worse.  As I write (Dec 5th), there’s a press interview with Ratan Tata, owner inter alia of Jaguar Land Rover, in which he cites high energy prices as a reason that the UK is not a good place for manufacturing.

So I was delighted to be invited yesterday as UKIP Energy Spokesman to the annual conference of the Major Energy Users Council, or MEUC.  I gave them a potted version of my conference speech introducing the party’s energy policy.  There were one or two people who took issue with our position on climate change, but almost no disagreement on the need to deliver affordable and dependable electricity supplies by focussing on nuclear, gas and coal (though some still hanker for carbon capture and storage).

There was one question sent in by a member unable to attend, who asked why, if UKIP challenged the orthodox view of global warming, we had not published our evidence.  My reply was straightforward: because the evidence is already there in the public domain, and it’s for experts and scientists to publish the evidence.  It’s the job of politicians to argue for policy.  The questioner should perhaps look at the massive body of evidence in Professor Fred Singer’s epic tome “Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change”.

That evening MEUC had organised their annual Christmas networking drinks party on the Terrace at the House of Commons.  We were addressed by none other than the redoubtable Tim Yeo, still in the thrall of climate alarmism, and trying to tell us that pursuing a low-carbon economy will put us in a strong competitive position, and that it will generate green jobs.  I don’t think anyone much from the industry agreed (In parentheses, I’ve just had the timber/chipboard industry in to see me, concerned that bio-mass subsidies are a threat to supply and pricing of wood to the chipboard industry, and estimating that one job created in a bio-mass plant means ten jobs lost in chipboard).

Tim Yeo was followed by Baroness (Sandy) Verma, whom I know of old from the East Midlands region, and for whom I have a lot of time.  She’s now a DECC Minister, and seemed much more realistic and grounded — though inevitably still toeing the line on climate orthodoxy.

The last speaker was MEUC General Secretary Andrew Buckley, who gave the most rational speech of the evening.  He appealed for action to prevent the relentless rise in energy prices that is doing such damage to competitiveness.  And he added “The danger is, as our friend from UKIP said this morning, that intensive energy users will move out of the UK altogether”.  The industry, if not the political class, understands the problem.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Major Energy Users: Are we driving them away?

  1. Charles Wardrop says:

    There is now no justification for ANY “Green” -measure spending, including the grotesque £2bn gift planned to help the underdeveloped world adopt Green measures.
    (Who knows in whose hands these remits will end up, and we’re in terrible debt, thanks to improvidence by UK finance ministers during the past decade and a half.)

  2. Mike Spilligan says:

    I’m at boiling point with anger over the litany of “green” measures or initiatives which don’t need repeating here but which are used as evidence to de-industrialise the nation, and which are based on either limited knowledge or a blind refusal to take into account all the facts instead of just the cherry-picked ones which suit the “right”, pre-planned result. The situation is now completely and utterly corrupt.
    We know that it’s no longer a question of producing scientific, technical or economic arguments, there being enough of those to persuade anyone with a broad knowledge of the real (rather than imagined) problems and a balanced view of the objectives to understand that any further “greening” is counter-productive. It is now wholly a political matter – hence the recent febrile statements on wars and killing our military people. The crown for asynchronous thinking must surely be shared between Osborne and Davey – while one “saves” £2 billions, the other gives away the same sum in futile gestures. .

  3. Pingback: Strange bed-fellows: Gazprom and Greenpeace | Roger Helmer MEP

  4. Pingback: Climate Policy and the Club du Bois | Roger Helmer MEP

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s