Securing a net-zero future demands long-term thinking – not short-term politics
3 min read
Three months on from the election and the battle lines of the political debate on net-zero and energy security are now in sharp focus.
It is a debate with significant, long-term implications for our future. You only have to look back a decade to see how the decisions we take on our energy supply matter.
Back in the Coalition government, the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg and Ed Davey, were immovable in their opposition to securing our nuclear energy future. Nick Clegg famously arguing 2022 was too long to wait for new capacity. It was short-termism then that is now costing this country dear today.
Right now, we are locked in a new variant of that debate – where the political short-termism of a race to 2030 is hidden in a rhetoric of becoming a “clean energy superpower”. Who wouldn’t want to be a superpower? A clean energy one at that. It is soothing and feel-good, but it is a short-term political goal, not a serious understanding of how to get to a net-zero future. Like the Lib Dems’ brick-wall resistance to nuclear, it risks a catastrophic set of long-term consequences for our country.
Imposition of green taxes, rising bills and ideological rigidity only breeds resentment
Let me be clear, the Conservatives want a net-zero future for our country. After all, we oversaw the fastest decarbonisation of any G20 nation. It is instinctively Conservative to want to do all we can to protect our planet. But how we get there matters.
In government, I was vocal that things like the boiler tax would set back our ambitions. It was an argument that won out. Why? Because governments only succeed when they take people with them. Imposition of green taxes, rising bills and ideological rigidity only breeds resentment and resistance from the people that end up footing the bill – the British people.
It is why the Conservative energy and net-zero team is challenging the government’s agenda. Every action it is taking is short-term politics and risks setting back the long-term ambition.
Almost everyone who understands the energy sector knows that oil and gas are vital for a successful transition. The government has taken away the flexibility afforded by our own natural reserves and hastened a rise in fuel bills. A short-term political message move, with long-term consequences.
Imposing onshore wind, solar farms and pylons risks a long-term battle of resistance with rural communities, all for the short-term politics of an arbitrary 2030 target that almost no-one except the Secretary of State believes achievable. A short-term political message move, with long-term consequences.
Great British Energy was set up with much fanfare, but little substance. GB Energy will consume lots of short-term political airtime, but it risks distorting the long-term investment we need. Government is investing taxpayer money in areas the private sector views as too risky, instead of working with the private sector to develop a balanced and sensible plan. We need a long-term investment plan in partnership with the private sector – GB Energy is simply not it. It was a short-term political message move, with long-term consequences.
In government, the Conservatives were taking the long-term actions needed to secure our net-zero future, while protecting our security. As we hold this government to account, they have that same choice to make – put aside short-term political messaging and deliver a sustainable path to a net-zero future.
Joy Morrissey, Conservative MP for Beaconsfield and shadow energy minister
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
