White Paper or Blank Paper?

Written by Andrew Stunnell MP, Shadow Energy Spokesman and published in The Gen on Wed 8th Oct 2003

The idea that energy policy is really important would strike most people as ridiculous, if they ever thought about it at all. After all, the lights always come on, our bills aren't too big, and there's plenty else to worry about - like schools, and police, and the NHS. Not to mention the Middle East. But actually energy policy is crucial. It is where economics meets the environment head on.

If we want a sustainable economy and a sustainable environment, we have to develop a sustainable energy policy. Which is why the Government's White Paper, sub-titled "Creating a Low Carbon Economy", is potentially so significant.

Mind you, it has taken more than five years to arrive. In that time Labour have had four different energy ministers, and three different energy policies. Surely you haven't forgotten the 'moratorium' on gas? Or the bail-out of British Energy? Or their enthusiasm for combined heat and power, followed by Ofgem's rules that have left most of it idling on standby?

Good News and Bad News

So, late as it is, the White Paper is a major step forward because it promises a new era of consistent long-term signals by government to producers and consumers. That could mean that investors and the market will be able to deliver the results society wants. That is the good news.

Less good is the fact that it is still going to take around 18 months before anything happens because new Acts of Parliament will be needed. That is pushing things rather too close to a general election to expect anything very adventurous. Plus the news that the Chancellor has already dished out all the money he's got for the next 3 years anyway, and that there is only £2 per head allocated to pay for everything in the White Paper. That is assuming the economy holds up. If it doesn't there could be even less public money to pump-prime the changes needed.

Targets, Aims, and Aspirations

So what does the White Paper say? First, it restates the importance of cutting back on man-made greenhouse gas emissions, and endorses the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's long-term targets of 60% reductions in CO2 by 2050 - though it is careful to say these are simply 'aims'.

It makes the key point that the lowest cost way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is through improved efficiency and conservation, especially in the domestic sector, and it also sets out the case for much greater use of renewable energy sources for new generation in the coming decades as existing plant is replaced.

Then it makes a crucial point about the security of supply of Britain's diverse energy sources, demolishing the myth that we can only be safe and prosperous so long as we avoid imports of raw fuels. That frees up the range of solutions that will work, though it won't be popular with either coal-miners or the nuclear industry.

The third thing I would single out of its 138 pages is the clear statement that the Government intends to work through the market to achieve its aims, using regulation and fiscal measures to lead investment and innovation into preferred areas, but with the lead partner being a healthy private sector, continuing to work in a liberalised market.

These are three broad themes that the Liberal Democrats support. Indeed they are remarkably similar to proposals we published in 1999! Unfortunately the document is almost completely silent on what mechanisms will actually be used to deliver them. Just to take one example, the White Paper emphasises the value of improving the energy efficiency of the average house - where around 30% of energy is completely wasted - but doesn't say what is to be done about it.

Still Going Round in Circles

Indeed, the week after it was published it leaked out that there is to be a 15% cut next year in the budget for grants to support home energy efficiency, and this month the Government is trying to block a Private Member's Bill that would take the first legislative steps forward in what you might think was an uncontroversial area.

There is example after example in the Paper where good intentions are not matched by clear thinking, and already far too many signs that they certainly aren't going to be matched by money.

That threatens at best only slow and erratic progress, and makes the targets set out more in the nature of slogans than the foundations of implementation plans.

I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like we could be in for more of the time-wasting that has dogged energy policy for so long. And that really is not good news, either for the economy, or our environment.