Radomir Tylecote makes the case for conservatives to embrace environmentalist policy in response to potential global warming. He describes the attitudes of British conservative thinkers on this subject as “atrophied”. Unfortunately, there are a number of distortions in his article which result in a failure to really engage with the conservative critique of the current direction of global warming policy, the direction that Radomir urges us to follow.
He argues that it is ironic that conservatives “scorn” requests from renewable energy firms for “better government support” as many of them are more sympathetic towards nuclear power, which also struggles without subsidy. This isn’t really ironic, it is simply the result of the fact that nuclear power gets far less subsidy per KWh and generates far more useful power, as it is less volatile than wind in particular.
Renewables firms currently get over £50 for every Renewables Obligation Certificate (ROC) they sell and they get one of those for every megawatt of power they generate. That is a massive subsidy, adding around 50% to their income, above the amount they’ll get from the market for actually selling the electricity (PDF).
Radomir thinks that nuclear has had “massive state subsidy”, but it has never enjoyed anything like the level of generosity currently being extended to renewables. Despite that, nuclear power has supplied a substantial portion of our electricity demand for decades, something that renewables have never done. Conservatives are right to be sceptical of sources of power that aren’t economical without the level of government support renewables currently receive, particularly given that it is vulnerable manufacturing industries and the poor who suffer most when prices rise.
He argues that it is ironic that conservatives “scorn” requests from renewable energy firms for “better government support” as many of them are more sympathetic towards nuclear power, which also struggles without subsidy. This isn’t really ironic, it is simply the result of the fact that nuclear power gets far less subsidy per KWh and generates far more useful power, as it is less volatile than wind in particular.
Renewables firms currently get over £50 for every Renewables Obligation Certificate (ROC) they sell and they get one of those for every megawatt of power they generate. That is a massive subsidy, adding around 50% to their income, above the amount they’ll get from the market for actually selling the electricity (PDF).
Radomir thinks that nuclear has had “massive state subsidy”, but it has never enjoyed anything like the level of generosity currently being extended to renewables. Despite that, nuclear power has supplied a substantial portion of our electricity demand for decades, something that renewables have never done. Conservatives are right to be sceptical of sources of power that aren’t economical without the level of government support renewables currently receive, particularly given that it is vulnerable manufacturing industries and the poor who suffer most when prices rise.
Of course, there are other objections to nuclear power, and many of them are taken to pieces in this article on Spiked. But, the only people who can really complain about nuclear power’s taste for subsidies are those using fossil fuels.
Radomir writes this as if we had nothing more than a smattering of inadequate measures putting a price on carbon emissions:
Radomir writes this as if we had nothing more than a smattering of inadequate measures putting a price on carbon emissions:
“Industrial pollution is a negative externality that ultimately needs to be priced for all polluters, so no single business is unfairly penalised. Such externalities can be factored into economic behaviour to create an environmental market system. Capitalism and the environment can thus be reconciled.
Britain has started to price some environmental costs; unfortunately the more politically difficult remain largely untackled.”
This ignores the fact that according to research for the Department for Transport emissions from air travel are more than reflected in the tax and TaxPayers’ Alliance research, confirmed by evidence produced for the IFS Mirrlees review, shows that other emitting activities like driving are also overtaxed relative to the environmental costs they produce. Total green taxes are well in excess of the social cost of our greenhouse gas emissions, they are excessive, even if you don’t count the Emissions Trading Scheme which is becoming an increasingly expensive and futile tax on everything. For more on this, see the report the TPA released last summer (PDF).
The argument that green taxes, emissions trading schemes and regulations like the Renewables Obligation aren’t an infringement upon the free market is hard to sustain. The market will react and respond to any incentives it is given, if taxes were put up to 100% then people would respond to those incentives as well. Expanding taxation and regulation as the green movement and Radomir advocate, though, will mean that it is less free, that firms respond less to the desires of individual people and more to the demands of government. Subsidies for renewables mean that the decision about our fuel mix isn’t in the hands of firms making a decision about how they can best supply demand, but in the hands of government which decides renewables are needed.
What is really unfortunate is that Radomir is right that conservatives should not concede the issue of the environment to the Left. But that is exactly what he is advocating by proposing that we follow their policies of massive government interventions in the economy. We should be promoting an alternative.
A free market response would encourage the development of technologies that can provide a real alternative to fossil fuels. It would entail trying to build, here and abroad, societies that are democratic, wealthy and free and therefore best placed to respond to any challenges thrown at them. The fate of the poor Burmese who faced a natural disaster poor and trapped shows that the best guard against natural disasters isn’t trying to control the climate but building a society willing and able to assist when things go wrong. Deaths from natural disasters fell throughout the twentieth century, despite some global warming, because humanity became richer and freer. Instead of trying to corral people into making and doing less we will be far safer and live far more fulfilling lives if we build on our free market, liberal traditions.
Conservatives (small or large ‘c’) should appreciate that.
The argument that green taxes, emissions trading schemes and regulations like the Renewables Obligation aren’t an infringement upon the free market is hard to sustain. The market will react and respond to any incentives it is given, if taxes were put up to 100% then people would respond to those incentives as well. Expanding taxation and regulation as the green movement and Radomir advocate, though, will mean that it is less free, that firms respond less to the desires of individual people and more to the demands of government. Subsidies for renewables mean that the decision about our fuel mix isn’t in the hands of firms making a decision about how they can best supply demand, but in the hands of government which decides renewables are needed.
What is really unfortunate is that Radomir is right that conservatives should not concede the issue of the environment to the Left. But that is exactly what he is advocating by proposing that we follow their policies of massive government interventions in the economy. We should be promoting an alternative.
A free market response would encourage the development of technologies that can provide a real alternative to fossil fuels. It would entail trying to build, here and abroad, societies that are democratic, wealthy and free and therefore best placed to respond to any challenges thrown at them. The fate of the poor Burmese who faced a natural disaster poor and trapped shows that the best guard against natural disasters isn’t trying to control the climate but building a society willing and able to assist when things go wrong. Deaths from natural disasters fell throughout the twentieth century, despite some global warming, because humanity became richer and freer. Instead of trying to corral people into making and doing less we will be far safer and live far more fulfilling lives if we build on our free market, liberal traditions.
Conservatives (small or large ‘c’) should appreciate that.
