Voices From An Echo Chamber
Lording it over us
Posted on 28 Oct 24
by Mark Hodgson
Paul Homewood recently reported on the House of Lords debate on Net Zero initiated by former Conservative MP Lord Lilley. Paul reports at length on Peter Lilley’s thoughtful and intelligent speech, and it is pleasing that the costs of net zero are at last being discussed in Parliament. Having discussed what passed for a debate on the Sixth Allocation Round (AR6) of the Contracts for Difference process in the House of Commons in A Puny Performance, a truly depressing experience, I hoped for something better from the members of the “upper” House. After all, one of the justifications usually put forward for our unelected, unrepresentative and thoroughly undemocratic second chamber is that it is full of people with experience, talent, skills and useful qualifications. The House of Lords Appointments Commission, whose job it is to supervise appointments to the independent cross benches, seeks to “add to the breadth of experience and expertise that already exists within the House of Lords, and also help ensure the House fully represents diversity within our country.” One might hope that the reference to diversity includes a diversity of opinions. Alas, so far as concerns this debate, it was something of a curate’s egg – only good in parts.
The debate featured twenty two members of the upper house, Lord Lilley included, and lasted for around two hours. Allowing for the fact that Lord Lilley both commenced and wound up the debate, this means that contributions were limited to little more than five minutes per speaker. Given that the purpose was supposed to be (per Lord Lilley) to “have an honest, frank, well-informed debate comparing the costs of action with the benefits of action”, there seemed to be little appetite on the part of the supporters of net zero for discussing, or even acknowledging, the costs of action, with much of the focus being on the supposed costs of inaction. None of this recognised the reality that the costs of inaction are zero, since nothing the UK does can influence the climate in the slightest, while the costs of action are both very real and very substantial.
Lord Lilley
I won’t repeat Lord Lilley’s speech, but I urge you to read it. In summary, his key points were broadly as follows:
Britain has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions more than any other major economy. They are now back to 1879 levels.
Britain has more offshore wind power than any country other than China, and lots of other renewable energy sources too.
Despite (or because of) this, British industry pays the highest electricity prices in Europe. In the two decades up to the start of the Ukraine war they doubled in real terms, while real gas prices remained largely unchanged.
We are losing vital industries and jobs. We import more and more energy-intensive goods.
Exporting manufacturing industry simply exports our emissions. Consequently, the real reduction in our “carbon footprint” is much less than the reported reduction.
The new government plans to accelerate the move to net zero, regardless of cost, to prevent North Sea exploration while importing oil and gas, and to ignore the impact of this on energy costs, growth and jobs.
Six succinct points, readily understandable, that should form the central aspect of the debate. Regrettably, they didn’t.
What follows is a note or two regarding the response to it. A response from 21 only of the 804 sitting members, with 782 of them not bothering to participate in the debate at all.
https://cliscep.com/2024/10/28/voices-from-an-echo-chamber/
