That green energy, all those renewables, is really cheaper than fossil fuels is something we’ve seen people say. But we’ve never really believed that they, themselves, believe it. For if they did then there would be no need for subsidies, laws, forcings and bans. People will naturally gravitate to the cheaper option and climate change will be solved.
But here we have someone who really does seem to believe this mantra:
Clean energy provides not only a key means to Britain achieving net zero within the timeline we’ve committed to, but also offers households a vital financial lifeline through decreasing the price of energy.
Oh well. But this is not what worries us here, not at all. Markets do refute such delusions even if it might take some time. Precisely because markets work through prices, those easily visible numbers that tell us about relative costs.
What strikes us as significantly dangerous is this:
The UK must now double down on its commitment to achieving a clean grid by 2035 – or risk breaking its net zero by 2050 pledge. Put simply, we cannot view these timelines, informed by expertise from top climate scientists and the Climate Change Committee, as malleable to political whim. They are gradated, clear pathways that must not be tampered with at this stage of innovation and investment as we transform our economy.
This is a demand that we cease to have democracy - at least upon this subject. For it is an insistence that however the next election - or next however many elections - goes this policy must be followed. But the entire point of having an election is to enable changes in policy. If we the demos decide we don’t like the law then we elect someone else and we get different laws. That really is the purpose of the system, that policy change is possible without uprisings.
Yes, this point does also cover other laws that have those “legally enforceable targets” and so on. They’re an abomination unto democracy.
The British constitution, that unwritten mishmash, has a central concept to it - no parliament may bind its successors. For the very obvious reason that the entire point of a new parliament is to change how the place is run - if that’s what the demos decides it wants.
Ossifying a highly contentious policy into the skeleton of the political system is inherently anti-democratic. Shame on those proposing such a thing. It’s not mattocks and pruning hooks time as yet but this attitude that you’ll do whatever we tell you whatever you say in an election is what does lead to such distressing episodes.