Reform UK’s green energy dilemma: rhetoric vs reality?

Richard Tice, the deputy leader of Reform UK would no doubt become minister of rabbit holes in a Reform government, since he spends so much of his time fulminating about climate change from a rabbit hole, and in the process has made countless rabbits homeless.

J K Galbraith the eminent Canadian economist was famous for his witticisms, one of which stated that “Wealth, in even the most improbable cases, manages to convey the aspect of intelligence”. Convey is the right word. When pressed, Tice flounders and blusters his way through interviews, which upend his certainty on immigration and most of all on his beliefs on climate change.

The media would like us to believe that the political consensus on climate change has shattered, because Kemi Badenoch and Tony Blair have sought to slow down progress on meeting net zero. It’s no surprise that Reform is spouting the same old myths about climate change and net zero that are common currency in climate change denial circles, but is that true of their voters?

The surprising concerns of Reform voter trends

Reform voters are more sceptical than other voters about the causes of climate change, but there is still a majority who support renewables. That, in itself, is remarkable, considering how many of them are enamoured with what they believe was a golden past. But they too watch David Attenborough, even when he points out to viewers that climate change is of our own making.

There is a greater than 99% scientific consensus that climate change is real, that a major cause of climate change is the wide scale burning of fossil fuels, and that for the UK’s own energy security and well-being, we need to reach net zero as fast as we can.

Another thing which is certain, is that there is no such thing as a political consensus. Politicians are like moths that dodge and weave when a light is shone on their activities. This is why you have a Green Party leader who opposes pylons in his constituency, or a Reform politician (Tice again), who denigrates renewable energy whilst his own company appears to benefit financially from its deployment.

If asked who would the general public believe; a here-today, gone-tomorrow politician, or David Attenborough, my money is on David A. The public are on side, but as always the politicians lack leadership and drive. We know we should be doing the right thing, but we prefer to prevaricate in case someone might kick off.

So let’s run a scan over the issue:

The climate change myths debunked

Climate change exists but it is not man-made: True the climate is not a constant, and the climate has altered in the past, sometimes quite violently. However, the scientific consensus is that carbon emissions and the burning of fossil fuels are a major cause of climate change.

I know that Andrew Bowie, the Tory energy spokesperson, says that we don’t need to get to net zero by 2050, and that many scientists think the same, it’s just he can’t name any. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR6 report is its latest, which adds yet more data to a compelling case for change.

The IPCC itself has been attacked in the past by sceptic s, but as the years have rolled by, a constant flow of extreme weather events throughout the world has delivered a consensus on climate change in many countries.

Even if we reach net zero by 2050, it will make no difference because China and the US are the biggest emitters of carbon: If we follow that logic, it’s also OK to abandon the rule of law and democracy, because many (probably a majority) of countries are run on an autocratic basis. China is investing in green energy systems, in fact the Chinese Minyang wind turbines, the likely supplier of turbines to the Green Volt development in the North Sea, is under government scrutiny. This would hardly be the case if China was not adopting green energy at a pace.

The US is a different case, because of the actions of President Trump, but even they know that change is inevitable.

Net zero costs too much: Not reaching net zero will cost even more, with the damage that climate change will bring.

Upgrading the national grid to enable green energy generating systems to contribute to the supply of energy, and future proofing energy supply for domestic, industrial, and in transport use is a costly affair, but the lack of investment and action to date is down to market failure.

Alternatively, the cost of energy which is based on the volatile price of gas, is even more expensive. Extracting more gas from the North Sea would not alter this, as gas is sold on the open market at the prevailing rates. These same free market promoters were quite happy to run down the home-produced coal industry, and to sell off the national grid and energy companies. Had we converted directly from coal to green energy, instead of yoking our economy to gas, and had we invested in a unified publicly owned national grid, the drive to net zero would have been a lot easier, and cheaper.

Wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy, but are admittedly intermittent, which is why battery farms and a few expensive nuclear power stations are necessary. Other forms of storage are becoming available, and the UK has substantial potential reserves of wave and tidal power it could exploit, which are not intermittent and have a longer life span than nuclear without the heavy decommissioning costs.

We have been here before: In 1925, the Weir Committee looked into the electrical supply industry. The high price of electricity was a public concern 100 years ago, as it is today. In those days, there were over 130 power stations, all serving local networks to different standards.

The Weir Committee proposed a Central Electricity Board and a National Grid. The Electricity (Supply) Act 1926 put this into effect. Then, as now, there were NIMBYs who did not like pylons, nay-sayers who said the grid would not work, and special interests who saw no reason to change.

But work it did. Britain did benefit from lower electricity prices and a secure supply network. That we discounted all these benefits, and allowed ourselves to return to the 1920s, says more about us than the prescient Weir Committee.

Net zero fake news: The trouble with the very wealthy is that they seem to believe that their views are the only ones that count, and they use their wealth to subvert critical thinking. They do this by disseminating fake news and half-truths. Take the recent political slot for Reform on Channel Four. There was Tice, spouting his stuff about expensive green energy, while studiously avoiding any mention of net zero. He pointed to the Drax Power station as an example of faulty thinking on green energy.

Unpacking Tice’s claims

Drax was built during the period when electricity was mostly generated by burning coal, and was administered by the Central Electricity Generating Board or CEGB, that replaced the CEB. After denationalisation and the collapse of coal-fired electrical generation, this 4000MW station started burning biomass, using wood, straw and other non-fossil pellets, mostly sourced overseas and shipped to the UK by sea. I actually agree with Tice on this point: Drax is an abomination, and there are calls for it to be more transparent regarding its sourcing of sustainable biomass. It is an example of somewhat expensive greenwashing that should be phased out, as should the mini biomass power station at Richborough.

I also agree that nuclear is an expensive option, especially as the build costs (the recently greenlit Hinkley C could outturn at £46bn), and the decommissioning costs are also eye-wateringly high. With that sort of cash, we could be building tidal barrages or wave machine arrays to deliver base load power.

Net zero isn’t optional – even for Reform’s base

However, the alternative of staying with gas and oil is no answer. The very reason that our energy prices are high is because of our dependence on gas and oil, and this leaves us with a lack of progress towards net zero.

I don’t portray myself as being anything other than being partisan towards net zero. I don’t sail under any flag of convenience, but too often those at Reform do so when they interview each other on certain news outlets, or by portraying themselves, or others, as being non-partisan. By all means state your piece, but do so from an unambiguously partisan angle.

It is an inconvenient truth that the majority of Reform voters back climate targets. They might have other concerns that differ from other voters, but they share the same sentiments on net zero that many others have, and there is nothing that Tice and Farage can do about it.